Via ferratas are finally catching on in the United States
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
This is completely backward; there is currently not a ban on fixed climbing anchors in wilderness areas, and the NPS and Forest Service are attempting to create bans through a backdoor by updating their climbing management guidelines.
There is no way via ferratas are ever going to go into wilderness areas. People can argue whether the occasional fixed rappel anchor is an impermissible “installation” under the Wilderness Act. But everyone agrees that via ferratas are.
There was a similar cables route up Longs Peak in Rocky Mountain National Park for decades, but NPS took it out, leaving the Keyhole Route as the easiest (but not easy) remaining way to the summit.
I really don't mind the car-camping crowd. They stay inside their gravel circles and don't impact the real wilderness much. But come time to vote they will always far outnumber the dedicated rock climbers. I want the car campers on my side. If that means giving them their parking spots then so be it.
That's exactly how they're protected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lands_protected_by_The...
I don't know where you get that. Parks are old. Older than petty debates between recent presidents. They rely on support from the population over decades, even centuries. This isn't about the ebb and flow of current voting patterns. This is about keeping people on the pro-park side intergenerationally. It is about making sure that people know what a park means, even if they only visited it as a kid decades previous. Current political personalities are irrelevant to that longer perspective.
Undervisited is a good thing for what remaining wilderness we have.
Also you are drilling into the rock. So much for leave no trace.
The US is mostly wilderness. Drive across it sometime staying off the highways.
Here is a map[1] for land designated wilderness.
[1]: https://gbp-blm-egis.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/BLM-EGIS::blm-n...
A reasonable person will come to my conclusion if they do as I suggest in my comment.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States
Or they don't own the definition.
Perhaps that will give you context in this discussion.
And I tend to agree that the designation should not be loosened.
Via ferratas can be fun, but you really don't want to fall, and if in doubt, do your research and get really good equipment.
Those are set up to limit the force up to a certain height, wouldn't they design those to limit the force to one less likely to cause permanent damage?
Don't use these. They are generally one-use affairs. They have a place in climbing but only as part of a larger system. The issue is multiple falls. Say you slip and cause an impact. The link does its thing and extends. Now you are on the side of a cliff without proper equipment. A proper dynamic climbing rope, used properly, will safely take repeated falls.
Do NOT do this. You _will_ die from a relatively simple fall.
ONLY use a proper via ferrata set on a via ferrata, with rip shock absorber rated to do so.
If you spend any time on a via ferrata, it’s pretty easy to see where the answers to one or more of these will be ‘not great’, and sometimes ‘really bad’.
For instance, hitting a rung on the way down. Or getting an appendage caught behind something.
But unlikely you’ll die.
And honestly, you shouldn’t fall unless you screwed something up pretty bad to begin with, which is your primary protection anyway.
You’re literally climbing a ladder, this isn’t wilderness trad climbing or developing some new route on loose rock.
But the falls are notoriously hard. Force can get really high and the chance of injury is high, even in cases where the fall zone is free of any metal etc..
Of course these would be a pain to tie and untie at each anchor point
There’s surprisingly few videos about this: https://youtu.be/A5w9Kkd-f2w
Even in a lab setting, pretty violent.
Via Ferrata is technically easy enough to attract less experienced people and steel ropes and ladders offer a false sense of security vs being the lead climber on an alpine climbing route with 60ft of run out above an anchor you built yourself.
"Telluride Via Ferrata in Colorado has been on our bucket list for quite some time. So when our cousin Anh asked if we want to make a trip there, of course, we said yes. Telluride Via Ferrata has to be one of the most exciting and unforgettable adventures. It combines mountain hiking with the traditional Via Ferrata cable system and breathtaking scenery. There is nothing more thrilling than traversing across a sheer cliff, 600ft above ground, with only safety tethers, a steel cable, and metal rungs to support you. Besides the spectacular views, this amazing adventure also challenges your physical and mental fortitude while giving you an incomparable sense of accomplishment."
And Quebec fwiw but I only know of the one at Tremblant (which is paid).
https://www.sepaq.com/quoi-faire/via-ferrata.dot?language_id...
Personally I'd love to see it retain that character and I think this is the wrong direction.
Imo if you want a European experience you should go to Europe.
And... yep, I just opened a random one (Estes Park?) - prices starting at 199USD a head! About 4x the price of a french one (30-50e per adult depending on how big it is and how expensive the location is)
I imagine it's a combination of novelty + everything being managed privately (whereas in most of europe there are a lot of subsidies to keep mountain areas thriving)
$200 sounds about what you'd pay for a guided tour (gear included) in Switzerland.
https://www.colmiane.com/activites-ete-sur-la-colmiane/via-f...
https://www.puremontagne.fr/fr/a-faire/nature/item/via-ferra...
Never heard about this being a tourist trap.
Further, equipment depends on difficulty. Some via ferratas are really just some metal cables to help keep your balance over small crossings, while others are traversing sheer cliffs and peaks with obviously fatal safety implications. It would be silly to require safety equipment for the former, while it'd be silly not to for the latter.
I assume the US experience would be quite different
If you think only those like you with your specialized equipment and your physical fitness should be able to go, you do still ‘spoil nature.’
There’s no need to point fingers at others for going an inch beyond your intrusion by leaving equipment in place. Popular routes are visited so often than the average condition for the area is climbers with equipment. Any peaceful absence of human presence is entirely imagined.
The scariest one was in Switzerland, called Mürren where there's a 30m horizontal section with a 400m vertical drop with nothing to hold on to other than the steel cable and some metal inserts in the wall, see https://www.sac-cas.ch/processed/sa2020assetsprod/9/0/csm_15... .
It’s the vertical sections, where you could free fall and pick up speed before your leash catches on the next anchor point, which can cause the worst injuries.
For those interested it would be beneficial to have some understanding of rock climbing mechanics - how to strategically prop yourself and rest, how to transfer weight, how to grip efficiently. You can definitely “muscle” your way through the courses but it will get tiring and then dangerous.
Highly recommend for those who have some beginner rock climbing experience and want to give it a shot!
We went with a paid guide in a small group and I thought it was money well spent. However, in Telluride it's public access so anyone can hike it completely free if they want. Make sure you know what you're doing though - follow the rules and I think it's quite safe.
I cannot express how strongly I am against this. The first rule of most every outdoor activity is "take only pictures, leave only footprints". That applies for everything from scuba diving to mountaineering. Hammering in rods and installing ladders on otherwise perfectly climbable rocks is just wrong. There is a time and place for fixed protection, and regular climbers have huge debates about this, but installing ladders so people can more easily "climb" in hiking boots doesn't meet anyone's standard. I've known many climbers who, if seeing any of this, would actively destroy such installations if anywhere close to existing routes. And in Zion? I guess it isn't halfdome or dawn wall but this is still a climbing mecca that that should be left unaltered.
I was once at a very popular toproping area when an army unit of about eight people showed up. They were about to hammer pitons into the cracks to "practice". The word when quickly around the crag and they were basically run out of town by a hundred climbers. You don't damage rock casually, not established climbing routes.
I don't begrudge someone who is not a very skilled climber their use of a via ferrata, provided that impact to the area (e.g. sightlines) is kept to a minimum and other options for more purists remain. I'm not a climber per se but this is the same attitude I have towards hiking, skiing, mountain biking, etc. I'm careful not to gate-keep casual folks using the Mt Washington cog railway because they get a lot of enjoyment out of it and it's a small blip in my Prezzie Traverse -- if carefully managed, there's enough nature for everyone.
Climbing is different. It is about very rarified and somewhat delicate places. Climbing is also always about balancing safety with ability. Anyone can hammer in ladders and assent a cliff. That isn't climbing. Make a route too "accessible" to the masses, make it easy, and the masses will loose respect. They will destroy it. Have a look at Everest base camp. It is effectively a landfill of garbage and human waste.
Also, the waste issues in the area are mostly due to serious climbers who go to less accessible places. Casual tourists stick to settlements, some of which have existed for centuries. Because the settlements are relatively wealthy and connected by decent paths, there seems to be less waste than in the average rural area in a third-world country.
If in order to provide access to a waterfall; you have to cut a road through a mountain and then clear out the trees at the base so you can construct a ramp for wheelchairs, you have disfigured the very thing that you wanted to preserve by having a park.
What is the difference, if any, between hammering these iron rungs and jack hammering steps into the rock face?
Why would we say that "via ferrata" is an acceptable amount of defacement while jack hammering is not?
There should be (and are) sites of natural beauty you can take pubic transit to, drive to, roll to, bike to, ski to, hike to, climb to, ice climb to, and yes, even cannot access at all, each category with it's own sub spectrum of difficulty (eg some one mile hikes, some weeks long treks). To me a via ferrata seems like the left hand side of this spectrum -- something in an already heavily impacted area that gives casual users access to something they otherwise wouldn't. If someone starts proposing putting them there they don't belong (real wilderness, serious climber spots) I'll be with you in advocating against that.
Its certainly worth pointing out that both Half Dome in Yosemite and Angels Landing in Zion feature VERY popular quasi-via ferrata as the primary descent route for famous and historic routes like the Regular Northwest Face of Halfdome, or Prodigal Sun on Angels Landing. And we're completely ignoring the role artificial holds play at Mesa Verde, both the ladders and hand rails installed by the NPS, and the surviving Anasazi installations.
The environmentalist argument against fixed gear or chipping, or via ferrata, always seemed pretty hollow to me, given that not many people are objecting to the trail building to get to the crag, or the frequently heavy cleaning that happens to remove loose rock and lichen and things to make a climb safer during the development (which happens even with routes completely bereft of fixed equipment). Nobody complains about the establishment of descent trails, or leaving slings to strangle trees, even as those have a much greater impact on the environment than a few dozen bolts, or even a few hundred pounds of metal handles and steel cable.
There's a fair argument, amongst climbers, about whether or not fixed anchors, or chipping, or via ferrata is sporting, but "sporting" is only a valid restriction for people playing the same game as you. But if there are no established routes on that rock, and you own the rock in question, who has a right to complain? I don't want to see them on public land, certainly, but on the continuum of human impact to rock faces, via ferrata is a lot closer to leaving only footprints than the roads through Zion or Yosemite, or Mt. Rushmore, or an open pit mine.
Your claim is contradicted by the fact that the most popular hike at Zion, Angels Landing, has an established set of fixed heavy chains to guide people up and down. Not to mention Walter's Wiggles, without which most people wouldnt be able to reach Scout's Lookout, the base of Angels Landing.
Also, these via ferratas you're objecting to are located outside Zion NP.
> would actively destroy such installations if anywhere close to existing routes
"anywhere close" implies visible but not interfering. Would it really ruin the climbing experience if the 5.12b route you are attempting happens to have an accessible option within view?
I am neither a climber nor someone who would use a via ferrata, but I do see parallels to my mountain biking hobby here, where skilled riders (and more often "expert beginner" types) are threatened when newbie-friendly trails are created.
"Vie ferrate" if you're getting Italian
Use a via ferrata set. Any ‘climbing bro’ that gives you any other advice is a dangerous person and you probably shouldn’t have them belaying you, as they value their ego more than your life.
USE THE CORRECT EQUIPMENT: Only via certified via ferrata set with a rip shock absorber.
However, Colorado needs to do some soul searching. Currently Colorado has exactly TWO free-access Via Ferattas: Ouray and Telluride. Allowing commercial companies to build exclusive access theme parks on public lands is a gross misuse of public lands.
Private land owners can charge if they want for all I care, but the most obnoxious thing about this model is even an experienced climber often must "hire a 'certified' guide" at absurd rates.
This describes nearly all ski areas in the US, good luck getting them to change how things are done on either the public or private side.
Railroads are called ferrovie.
Eg.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societ%C3%A0_per_le_strade_f...
It is admittedly a bit of an obsolete term compared to "ferrovia", but it is sometimes still used in more formal register.
I guarantee you that it's NOT used in more formal registers, now that you showed me that Wikipedia article maybe I already read the term on some history book, but no, it's never used now.
Looking it up a little it appeared to have been used initially, but it was probably already obsolete by the end of the nineteenth century.
Thank you for making me learn something anyhow xD
No, it’s "ferrovia" and it’s in the wrong order because it’s based on English: rail+way -> ferro+via.
But it is ONLY an adjective, you can not use it as a noun (you would use "ferrovia" for railroad track, instead).